Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed with a delay of 49 days. The assessee claimed that they became aware of the first appellate order only when informed by the AO and subsequently downloaded it. The assessee had not attended hearings before the AO and CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to its short duration and the reasons provided. The Tribunal found that while the assessee was lax, in the interest of substantive justice, the impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by the lower authorities warrants setting aside.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA
(Assessment Year 2017-18) Kunal Kumar, S/o Chandeshwar Prasad, Chabilapur, P.O. Chabilapur, P.S. Manpur, Nalanda-803101 [PAN: DLSPK4594P] ..............…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(4), Bihar Sharif ..….............................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sh. A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Department represented by : Rinku Singh, CIT DR Date of concluding the hearing : 16.04.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 23.04.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
In this case, the ITAT Registry has informed that there is a delay of 49 days in the filing of the present appeal. The appellant has filed an affidavit and a written statement regarding this. It has been stated that the assessee came to know about the first appellate order only when he was informed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer about the same. Thereafter, he downloaded the impugned order from the income tax portal. He has requested for condonation of delay accordingly.
1.1 We have considered the reasons advanced for the said delay and the same is condoned not only for the reasons given in the petition but also
In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act’), by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.11.2023, through which the action of Ld. AO has been confirmed. It is seen that before both of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not attend to any of the dates fixed for filing of details/hearing. Thus, both of the orders are exparte in nature.
2.1 The Ld. AR has averred that due to carelessness of the counsel and lack of awareness on the part of the assessee, the faceless proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) could not be attended to. The Ld. AR has requested for another chance to present the facts before either of the authorities below.
2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have carefully considered the facts of the case and have also gone through the documents before us. We find that the assessee has been rather lax in pursuing his case before the authorities below. However, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to respond promptly to the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in the case.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.